18. What makes Buddhists and Christians believers in the Incorporeal one, not the corporeal one, as it has been taught in the Advance Course? Buddhists widely pray and worship idols of Buddha. Christians make pictures and idols of Corporeal God, and descript him as a Person, an old man with the beard and moustache, who walks, speaks, feels and so on.

Buddhists are atheists whereas Christians believe Christ to be son of God. And that God is believed by them to be incorporeal.

21. Is it possible to finally clarify the divisions in particular religions? It was taught in the Advance Course that Buddhism split in the mahayana and hinayana, Christianity in catholics and protestants, Muslims in shiah and sunna. However, the historical data show something different:

the main split in Buddhism - sthaviravada and mahasambhika (Buddhists don't accept that they are divided in mahayana and hinayana as mahayana contains the teachings of so called hinayana; Buddhists themselves say that the term hinayana is not correct and misleading)

the main split in Christianity - the eastern church and the western church (the division into catholics and protestants concerns only the western church)

the mai split in Muslim - shiah and sunna

what about Islam? The name 'Islam' in popular languages mean 'Muslim' and these two are used for the same thing - the Muslim religion establish in VII century. Why in Gyan is the word 'Islam' used in a different meaning? There must be a reason and it would be good to know it. Abraham has been described in history as the Father of three religions: Judaism, Christianity and Muslim. All three religions believe in him. Judaism was established by Abraham's son and grandson in Arabian Peninsula in the region of Palestine. Christianity was established among Jewish people in Arabian Peninsula and Muslim religion in the same peninsula. So the question is, how does Islam really split?

As far as I know I have read the same splits in various religions in the history books that Baba describes in the advance knowledge.
As regards Islam, there is not much accurate history available about it and Abraham. The information available in the Old Testament is more like a mythological story than history.

22. Who are real atheists (apart from the explanation 'those who do not know the Father'; there are few explanations of atheists in the Gyan, not necessary leading to the same conclusion)? This issue seems to be very confusing. In the Advance Course Russians are said to be atheists, despite the fact that 60-70% of Russians in the outside world are Christians belonging to the Eastern Church (the most orthodox type of Christianity). Who are those Russians that the course is speaking about? They were declared as those who create atom bomb. However, the atom bomb was created by Jewish (if we use the laukik criteria of religion) among Christians in the west (America). Now, regarding atheism, it was present in India since...? Among 6 classical philosophical schools one was purely atheistic; then, atheism was the fundament of buddism - they do not accept the existence of God and soul. Finally, if we look at facts - atheism among Christians was born among French and they were first who killed their kings, not Russians. So, all this seems to be rather unclear.

I think it is Russians only. I think they wiped out the monarchy completely whereas in case of France only one King was killed.
As regards Buddhism, although they do not believe in God or soul, they worshipped Buddha and hence they believe in some corporeal form or the other. So, they cannot be called completely atheist.

Thank you for your contribution. Do the answers you posted here belong to Baba or do they result from your churning? I think that we are heading to nowhere as these answers repeat what Baba have already said.

I don't know how you can call Christian believers in the incorporeal? It sounds strange indeed. They describe God as a person! A living person who walk in the garden of Eden and speaks. They depict God himself as a person, not an incorporeal light. A PERSON! They depict him as an old man. How, on the basis of what do you see them believe in incorporeal point of light as Baba teaches. Please, show some tangible facts. The outside Christians are only a reflection of the seed and roots of Christianity. If the outside Christians do not believe in point, but they believe in God as a person, how then can the inside Yagya Christian seeds and root be considered to believe in a point?

On the basis of what do you call Russians atheist? Outside Russians belong to the most orthodox branch of Christianity. Then, why do you call Buddists atheist and later you say that they are not completely atheist? I find it very contradictory and ambiguous. I cannot find sense in all this.

I would be grateful if you could be more specific and post on what evidence, what tangible facts you base your statements.

Om Shanti. I have tried to reflect the official point of view of AIVV in my answers to your questions to the best of my knowledge.

As regards Christians, they may believe God to have a human form, but I have not seen any Christian worshipping corporeal form of God. Be it their homes or the Churches, they always keep the picture of Christ. Had they believed in a particular form of God like the Hindus, they would have worshipped God instead of Christ. So, in effect, their God can be considered as incorporeal.

Buddhists are atheists because they do not believe in God or soul, but they are not completely atheists because they believe/worship corporeal Buddha, who is considered by Hindus as one of the avatars/incarnations of God. They also believe in rebirth although they do not believe in the existence of soul as such.

anu wrote:21. Is it possible to finally clarify the divisions in particular religions? It was taught in the Advance Course that Buddhism split in the mahayana and hinayana, Christianity in catholics and protestants, Muslims in shiah and sunna. However, the historical data show something different:

the main split in Buddhism - sthaviravada and mahasambhika (Buddhists don't accept that they are divided in mahayana and hinayana as mahayana contains the teachings of so called hinayana; Buddhists themselves say that the term hinayana is not correct and misleading)

the main split in Christianity - the eastern church and the western church (the division into catholics and protestants concerns only the western church)

the mai split in Muslim - shiah and sunna

I have a book titled 'A history of the world's religions' by David S. Noss. It does acknowledge the division of Buddhism into Mahayana and Hinayana, Muslims into Shia and Sunni, Christians into Catholics, Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox Christians.

anu wrote:I don't know how you can call Christian believers in the incorporeal? It sounds strange indeed. They describe God as a person! A living person who walk in the garden of Eden and speaks. They depict God himself as a person, not an incorporeal light. A PERSON! They depict him as an old man. How, on the basis of what do you see them believe in incorporeal point of light as Baba teaches. Please, show some tangible facts.

The above mentioned book has two big chapters on Christianity totalling nearly 85 pages but there is only one paragraph on Christ's concept of God as follows:

"From the time of his baptism by John the Baptist the reality of God and of his own intimate relationship with God occupied the central place in Jesus' thinking. He was never moved to set in order his reasons for believing in the reality of God. In that age of universal faith in the divine existence, no one ever asked him to. What people desired to know was what kind of a god was God, and what, in view of his character, he might be expected to do. On this point Jesus spoke with profound assurance. God was the sovereign moral personality ruling the universe, the moving spirit in the course and at the end of history, a transcendent being, sternly righteous, who never departed from perfect justice in determining the course of events or the destiny of an individual. This God drew near to one bowed down in prayer. He was forgiving and merciful, primarily occupied with human redemption, in character and action paternal. Jesus' favorite name for God was Father (or Father in Heaven). It is implied in his teaching that though God allows people to make their own decisions and, like the prodigal in the famous parable, take the means at their disposal and waste them in riotous living, he continues to love them throughout the redemptive process of retribution that inevitably follows and will forgive them when they return to him. God therefore is utterly good as well as holy. People should trust him and regularly seek spiritual enlightenment through prayer, especially private prayer in their rooms or in the solitude of the fields and hilltops."

The above book neither mentions about any human form of God nor shows any picture of God (as per Christian philosophy). Had Christ himself believed in a corporeal form of God, he would have asked his disciples to worship that corporeal form of God. Instead he just described God in the above manner and in the absence of any concrete corporeal form of God the Christians started worshipping Christ as the Son of God or God Himself. The proof for this is available in the above book in the paragraphs on Paul (considered to be the second founder of Christianity). The above Book says 'For Paul the Lordship of Christ meant more than the Messiahship of Jesus. Christ as Lord had humbled himself into human form, suffered death, and conquered death. In him one encounters God's revelation in history. The contexts of the usage of "Christ" make it clear that the referent was not always a person."

The above Book also writes in detail about Augustine. I quote "But the greatest personality of the ancient Catholic Church was Augustine (354-430), bishop of Hippo, in North Africa." The above Book further states "Augustine's mystical personal experience of God kept him from thinking of God as a pure abstraction. God is near and very real, and both in the person of Jesus and through the activity of the Holy Spirit has broken into history and is continuously at work in human hearts. And yet, Augustine's conception had a Neo-Platonist tinge. God is the one eternal Being, alone absolutely real and absolutely good.....Augustine adapted his conception of God to his Christian conviction that God is "one in three". In the Trinity he saw no subordination of one member to another, as earlier theologians did. "There is so great an equality in that Trinity," he wrote, "that not only the Father is not greater than the Son, as regards divinity, but neither are the Father and the Son together greater than the Holy Spirit." Going further, he suggested that the Holy Spirit, though equal with the Father and the Son regarding divinity, "proceeds not only from the Father but also from the son (filioque)."

So, the above quotations clearly prove that the Christian concept of God is almost same as incorporeal God. The above views of Augustine on God also tally with the concept of incorporeal and corporeal Father as taught in the advance knowledge, which says that both are interdependent.

arjun wrote:So, the above quotations clearly prove that the Christian concept of God is almost same as incorporeal God. The above views of Augustine on God also tally with the concept of incorporeal and corporeal Father as taught in the Advanced Knowledge, which says that both are interdependent.

Thank you arjun for comprehensive quotations. I wonder why do you quote a book that is some contemporary writer's view on some others' views and their understanding of the Bible. Refer to the Bible itself and you will find there hundreds - thousads proofs of the existence of the corporeal God in the Bible as well as in the teachings of Jesus.

Here just a few:
"1:6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."
"1:31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
"3:8: And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst thetrees of the garden."
"2:8: And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."
"9: And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?"
"MT:1125: At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth,because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."

[and others]

Please, refer to the original scripture of the religion in question, not to what others write. Do you rely on the commentaries to the Gita or would you rather refer to the Gita itself?

As regards Christians, they may believe God to have a human form, but I have not seen any Christian worshipping corporeal form of God. Be it their homes or the Churches, they always keep the picture of Christ. Had they believed in a particular form of God like the Hindus, they would have worshipped God instead of Christ. So, in effect, their God can be considered as incorporeal.

You see Arjun, the fact that you haven't seen something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It only means that you haven't seen it. Christians do keep in their churches the images of God. Particularly in the old churches you can find two types of images. One type of God's image is the eye in a triangle and the other type of God's image is a picture of an old man. In the past Christians worshipped God, but with the course of time they started worshipping Christ. Christ taught about God but his followers forgot God and started worshipping Christ and Christ became God form them; exactly like in India. Here in India people do not worship God. They did in the past, they worshipped the incorporeal one. Later on they started to worship deities and later on they started to worship ... everything, even exreta. For ages Indians have been using the term 'God' (bhagvan) in a very strange way - they call deities, humans and animals "god". The fact that they call them 'god' doesn't mean at all that they worship God Himself. The argument you have used above, doesn't seem appropriate to me.

Thera are thousands of them. In churches and in their homes. I saw lots of them when I travelled.

I have a book titled 'A history of the world's religions' by David S. Noss. It does acknowledge the division of Buddhism into Mahayana and Hinayana, Muslims into Shia and Sunni, Christians into Catholics, Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Dear Arjuna, please go into the history of both religions and see more than one source. The first and the most important division in Christianity is into the Western and the Eastern Church. This is the main duality. The division into Catholics and Protestants relates to the Western Church only. It is not the main division, but secondary. The same regarding Buddhism. Some contemporary writers stereotipically use term Mahayana and Hinayana. However, this was not the first and the main division that occured in the Buddism according to historical data and you will find this facts in good research on Buddhist history. Many Buddhists themselves say that they cannot be divided into hinayana and mahayana, because what is called "hinayana" is contained in "mahayana"; this means that introducing this division doeasn't make sense as whoever would fall into mahayana would follow hinayana anyway. People use terms 'Mahayana ' and "hinayana" without understanding them properly which brings about confusion.

my dear brother anubhai wrote:I don't know how you can call Christian believers in the incorporeal? It sounds strange indeed. They describe God as a person! A living person who walk in the garden of Eden and speaks. They depict God himself as a person, not an incorporeal light. A PERSON! They depict him as an old man. How, on the basis of what do you see them believe in incorporeal point of light as Baba teaches. Please, show some tangible facts.

I have got a quotation from the website http://www.atomtoalmighty.com about the corporeal-like stage of God which goes against the Muslim concept of the incorporeal God.

Anu wrote:Thank you arjun for comprehensive quotations. I wonder why do you quote a book that is some contemporary writer's view on some others' views and their understanding of the Bible. Refer to the Bible itself and you will find there hundreds - thousads proofs of the existence of the corporeal God in the Bible as well as in the teachings of Jesus.
Here just a few:
"1:6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."
"1:31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

The book that I quoted is not an ordinary book, but contains a detailed history of all the religions and their philosophies. Since you may not have read or seen it, so you are dismissing it as any ordinary book. But anyway thanks for the weblinks. I am aware that Christians believe in a corporeal form of God, but it is as good as incorporeal because they never publicized God. Their entire focus was on Christ. Their description of God is exactly same as the BK trance messengers seeing Brahma Baba talk to ShivBaba in the Subtle Region. There are hundreds of trance messages which indicate that the trance messengers saw Brahma Baba and ShivBaba in the Subtle Region, but they never described how he was/is. Similarly, Christians have prepared an imaginary picture of God in the form of an old man, but do they really remember God in the form of an old man? I think a vast majority of them remember God in the form of Christ or as an incorporeal entity.

I have visited a few Churches in India and in none of them I could find the picture of God as reproduced by you. May be different Christian artists have differently depicted the pictures of God as per their imaginations. Most of the pictures that you have reproduced look more like a work of art from museums rather than something worshipworthy for Christians. However, whenever I get a chance, I would definitely visit some famous churches and try to find out if their God has been given more importance than their 'Son of God'. I will also interact with some Christians in this regard.

There are thousands or more so called extraordinary books. They contain history of religion and philosophers. I do not want to dismiss it. I would like to suggest that it would be better not rely on it more than on what the Bible contains. The Bible describes the corporeal God and Christ's teachigs also contain descriptions of the corporeal God. Have you read them? According to the rule "old is gold" there is more truth in the Bible than in the book you have quoted.

What do you understand by saying 'publicize God"? ANd what do you mean by saying that Christian describtion of God are like those in BKs. I do not understand.

If you like to see Christian churches, you may visit the cradle of Christianity. Why to seek evidences for how Christians believed or depicted God in India which is not the cradle of Christianity? Christianity in India appeared long after it was established. Christians in India are very specific and different from Christians in Europe or America. You may not find good examples of their art in India. Links that I sent to you represent what Christians keep in their old churches. They believe in Christ exactly in the same way Hindus believe in Krishna. There is no difference. They have similar concepts, ideas and rites to those connected with Krishna. So, I cannot understand why we should make this distinction that Hindu believe in corporeal and Christians in incorporeal. This sounds illogical.

Anyway, let's leave the world outside. My question was primarily about the world of the Brahmins and Gyan. I think that there are many contradictory information at this moment in Gyan about who believes in incorporeal one and corporeal one. Both Christians and Buddhists were called those who believe in the corproeal one ---- they are called those among the beads in the Rudra mala who accept the corporeal Father. And the same Christians and Buddhists have been called those who believe only in the incorporeal one. Finally, Buddhists were called atheists, who don't believe in god. I think that these pieces of information are contradictory and ambiguous. WHen cotrasted with the situation in the outside world, some of them turn to be contradictory too. So, basically, I am looking for logic and clarity. I like logic and clarity of the information. Frankly speaking, I haven't found it yet.

Anu wrote:What do you understand by saying 'publicize God"? ANd what do you mean by saying that Christian describtion of God are like those in BKs. I do not understand.

They give more publicity to Christ than God just as BKs give more publicity to Brahma Baba than ShivBaba.

I have already clarified the second question that the trance messengers among BKs describe that they saw ShivBaba with Brahma Baba and witnessed ShivBaba talking to Brahma Baba. But they do not describe who that ShivBaba was/is.

The difference between Christian and Hindu concept of God is that Hindus believe God to have incarnated in flesh and blood while for Christians it is an imaginary figure believed to exist in some imaginary heaven.

In the advance knowledge Christians are believed to be leftists and Buddhists as rightists because they give more importance to purity.

They give more publicity to Christ than God just as BKs give more publicity to Brahma Baba than ShivBaba.

it would like to say that I find it a strange argument in the discussion. The Hindu in India give the greatest publicity to Krishna, not to God.

The difference between Christian and Hindu concept of God is that Hindus believe God to have incarnated in flesh and blood while for Christians it is an imaginary figure believed to exist in some imaginary heaven.

Dear Arjuna, if we are to use the term "imaginary" for me the whole Hindu religion is imaginary to the same extent as Christianity. THe Hidnu cannot say anything about the realiti of their God. They have numerous gods and numerous fairy tales. Christians think that Christ was the inarnated God in the earth, which is not different from what Hindus think about their Gods. Only the form of stories is different. Descriptions of Shankar and Parvati and all stories around them are imaginary to the same extent as those around Christian God are. Hindu believe that Shankar lived on Kailash and Christians think that God Jahve lived in Eden.

As for

In the Advanced Knowledge Christians are believed to be leftists and Buddhists as rightists because they give more importance to purity.

---- this doesn't correspond or refer to my remark about calling both the Christians and the Buddhist 'nirakar ko mannevale and Sakar ko mannevale" at the same time in AIVV, which I called ambiguous and unclear. It has nothing to do with being on the left side on on the right side.

anu wrote:The Hindu in India give the greatest publicity to Krishna, not to God.

But they believe Krishna to be God, unlike the Christians who say that God is different from Christ but give publicity to Christ as if he is God.

Christians think that Christ was the inarnated God in the earth

This is what I want to say that on the one side they say Christ is son of God and that God lives in heaven and on the other side they say that Christ is God. So, is it not a confusion, just like sachkhand who says that Dada Lekhraj is Shiv?

I feel that it would be better if you could go through the concept of the Trinity that the Christians believe in and then come back to this discussions.
Christians do not say that Christ is different from God and God is different from Christ; they believe that the Father and the Son are one. This is much closer to the Trimurti concept that is taught in AIVV than the concept of Krishna as God in Hinduism. In some aspects the Christian idea of the Trinity reflects the concept of Trimurti taught in AIVV even closer than the Trimurti in Hinduism. For Christians God and Christ - the Father and the Son - are together in heaven and they are united so there is no difference between them. They believe that Christ was sent by God to save humans and after his mission he went back to God.

There are also various contradictions and illogical points in the whole Christian concept, but I cannot find any evidences in it that Christians believe in incorporeal point of light. They believe in salvation of the soul and the body and those who will reach it will see with their eyes God and Christ as persons and will enjoy happiness together with them in paradise. This is what Christians believe in. They also believe that man lost paradise and will regain paradise. Those who were and who will be in paradise have flesh and body and God the Father is also shown by them as a person. So, based on what I know about Christian faith I simply cannot understand why they are called in AIVV as "those who believe in the incorproeal one".

But they believe Krishna to be God, unlike the Christians who say that God is different from Christ but give publicity to Christ as if he is God.

Please, go through the Christian concept of the Trinity and you will see that what you wrote above is not completely correct.

anu wrote:Dear All participants
A student who left BKs is eager to understand AK. He needs SM points about the difference between Shiva and ShivBaba.
He read in Murli of 4.4.01 published by AIVV (Murli khand 1) a point: Shiv ko ShivBaba kahte hi hai. (Shiva is called ShivBaba.) He cannot understand why then AIVV blames BKs for their teachings that it is Shiva who is ShivBaba. He understands that remembering Brahma is wrong as he is something detructable. He received all points that AIVV gives about accurate remebrance, but he is not convinced. Where was it said in SM, he asked, that Shiva is called ShivBaba when he is in body.
If any of you has those points from Sakar Murli, please post them.

Om Shanti. I wrote to Baba in this regard and I got the following Murli point from the Head Office:" शिवबाबा नाम शरीर पर पडता है।" - मु. 24.3.01
The approximate English translation is:"The name ShivBaba is based on the body." - Mu.24.3.01

Two months have passed since I posted the questions for search in this section. When I posted them, Arjun wrote that he may get answers from Baba. Now I uderstand that he did not receive any answer.

Before that the group of 5 people from India and from Europe had tried to receive explanations and answers to the same set of questions from Baba for app 2 years. No success. The last e-mail about this issue was sent to Baba in October 2010 by one of the students from Europe who had still faith that Baba would clarify these doubts and contradictions.

Yesterday that group of people had a chat on this. I took part i it. We came to a conclusion that the situation doesn't work for the favor of AK and the students. Whatever are reasons behind neglecting our efforts to understand some crucial facts from AIVV teachings, none of us knows.

I personally have serious doubts whether AIVV institution trully values and supports research, investigation, studies, impartiality. This situation reminds me of BK practices, the same practices for which AIVV criticies them. And these practices came right from the center. :sad: Does AIVV too, like BK, use cult practices? For me, it is really sad.

ANU wrote:
I personally have serious doubts whether AIVV institution trully values and supports research, investigation, studies, impartiality. This situation reminds me of BK practices, the same practices for which AIVV criticies them. And these practices came right from the center. :sad:

You have said it very rightly, that whatever happens in pbk family is what has already happened in bk family.....it is said in Murlis: "behad ki history-geography repeates itself" (means that whatever happened in BKs is going to be repeated in PBKs)....it is never said in Murlis that ''hadh ka drama repeats itself''....Murlis always mention that ''behad ka drama repeats itself''.

Does AIVV too, like BK, use cult practices? For me, it is really sad.

Yes--it is really sad for all PBKs that they are going the bk way, but fail to realise it and those who do realise it, do not have the courage to ask Baba for a explanation.
But again, asking Baba Dixit is not going to be fruitful, as he is not going to answer directly(as his mayavi part does not allow him to do so) and he will give ambigious answers which will again leave the PBKs guessing.....it is only after 108 form a sangatan, then Maya will surrender in front of them.....as per Vanis.